Search form

You are here

population

OFIR was founded partly because of the need to alert Oregonians and U.S. citizens to the environmental consequences of excessive immigration levels.

Following is an excellent summary reminding us of the destructive effects on our environment caused by mass migration. The statement was issued by theImmigration Reform law Institute, on the occasion of Earth Day, 2019. Earth Day is observed annually on April 22, throughout the world.

-------------------------

“On Earth Day, we should all recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Those who advocate against borders and reasonable immigration controls are acting irresponsibly and causing great damage to our planet. An effective plan to protect our environment must recognize the role that mass migration plays in boosting CO2 emissions and pollution to dangerous levels.”

637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.

Mass migration grows America’s carbon footprint

One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources. If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.

Global climate hypocrisy

While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the United Nations simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants. After the Trump administration pulled the United States out of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria followed suit. Austria and Slovakia have also indicated they will act similarly. Their objection is that the pact may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country.

Border trash is piling up

The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally.

According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually. That’s more than 32 tons of garbage—plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products and much more—on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016. This is only one of our four southern border states, and not even the largest.

Our government needs to act

With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong. IRLI has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades. Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing and publicizing those effects. The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.

by Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.

Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere.

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here.

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S. We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.” For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing at a sustainable level of around 150 million. Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many.

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues. Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

California frequently comes to mind when people think of the one state pushing back hardest against the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

With its massive Hispanic immigrant population, outspoken big-city mayors, and Democratic-dominated government, it attracts the lion’s share of media attention as an exemplar of a sanctuary state. But for all of its pro-immigration, anti-Trump bona fides, California still falls short of its neighbor to the north.

No state has done more than Oregon to position itself as the most ardent — detractors would say say extreme — sanctuary state of all. As the Trump administration moves to crack down on jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents, arch-progressive, first-term Gov. Kate Brown remains defiant, advancing laws that build on Oregon’s long history of shielding illegal immigrants from the federal government.

30 years of sanctuary

The “sanctuary” term, whether referring to cities, counties or states, has become a convenient shorthand to describe any jurisdiction that refuses to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law....

Opponents of sanctuary cities, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, use it as an epithet to describe local governments who put politics over the safety of their citizens, while supporters like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wear it as a badge of honor in defiance of an overreaching federal government.

Oregon was a sanctuary state before anybody used the word to describe how states work, or refuse to work, with the federal government on immigration enforcement. In 1987, the Oregon legislature overwhelmingly passed a law ...

“No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,” the law states.

The blanket prohibition prevents police from arresting illegal aliens unless they have broken certain immigration-related sections of the federal criminal code or are the subject of a warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate. Most of Oregon’s police agencies also interpret that law to mean that they cannot agree to requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold criminal aliens in local jails beyond their release dates.

The Multnomah County Sheriffs Office, which covers the city of Portland, clarified its position in a September 2016 memo, saying that both state law and a U.S. district court decision prevent jail officials from honoring ICE detainers. Like many similarly situated sheriffs overseeing liberal counties, Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese has painted the sanctuary policy as a benefit to public safety.

“The Sheriff’s Office is not responsible for enforcing federal immigration policy. We are primarily responsible for local law enforcement,” Reese wrote in the memo. “In this role, it is vital community members feel comfortable calling 911 to report crimes and to participate as witnesses and victims in our local system, without fear of that information being shared with ICE.”

In effect, Oregon has for many years enforced policies that states including California and Massachusetts are now trying to put in place with their own sanctuary state legislation.

A political opportunity

Though Oregon was a sanctuary state in name and practice long before Trump became president, the state’s Democratic leaders have redoubled their efforts to protect illegal immigrants since Inauguration Day.

As soon as Trump took office and began issuing executive orders on tougher immigration enforcement, local and state authorities countered with immigration directives of their own. Particularly in Multnomah County — a bastion of West Coast progressivism where Hillary Clinton won 76 percent of the vote — opposition to the administration’s immigration policies became one of the surest ways to win political favor with liberal constituents.

The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners issued a resolution declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction and affirming that residents would continue to have access to all county services regardless of immigration status. The commissioners said the resolution was necessary due to “recent political events” that “have continued to spur and build a climate of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination toward many in our communities.”

At the state level, Brown followed up with a February executive order that applied the immigration-related restrictions on police to all state agencies. Much like the Multnomah County resolution, Brown’s order also prevented public agencies from making immigration status a condition of receiving public services.

Oregon’s lawmakers have also gotten in on the act with a proposal that would prohibit all “public bodies” in the state from sharing or inquiring about a person’s immigration status except in cases required by federal or state law. Democratic backers of House Bill 3464, which passed both chambers of the Oregon legislature in July, cast the measure as strengthening privacy protections for state residents....

Brown has until Aug. 11 to decide whether sign the bill into law, issue a veto or simply do nothing, which would allow the legislation to take effect automatically. The governor, a progressive darling lauded as one of the most prominent state-level opponents of the Trump administration, has previously expressed support for the bill and is unlikely to send it back to the legislature.

Oregon Democrats remain undeterred in their push to bolster the state’s sanctuary laws, even after an illegal immigrant allegedly raped a 65-year-old Portland woman in late July. The suspect, Mexican national Sergio Jose Martinez, had been deported more than a dozen times and was the subject of an ICE detainer, but Multnomah county jail officials released him from custody in December 2016 without notifying immigration agents. (RELATED: Man Who Allegedly Raped Oregon Woman Had Previous ICE Detainer, 13 Deportations)

While neither Brown nor Portland’s Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler have publicly commented on the case, Republican state Sen. Kim Thatcher said it was a consequence of the sanctuary policies state Democrats have enacted.

“Kate Brown is sacrificing innocent Oregonians’ safety on her election altar and I think Oregonians are starting to wake up and realize the sanctuary state Kool-aid she’s forcing on all of us is horrifically toxic,” Lockwood wrote TheDCNF in an email.

Recently Tucker Carlson dove into a subject pretty much verboten in present-day political discussion – How Many Is Too Many? That’s the title of his guest’s book, by Philip Cafaro, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University.

Cafaro’s book, subtitled The progressive argument for reducing immigration into the United States, was published in 2015, but thanks to Tucker and some emerging enlightenment elsewhere, it’s now beginning to be discussed more publicly.

The chapter headings in Cafaro’s book indicate the framework of his argument: Good people, hard choices, and an inescapable question.- Immigration by the numbers.-The wages of mass immigration.-Winners and losers.-Growth, or what is an economy for?- Population matters.-Environmentalists’ retreat from demography.-Defusing America’s population bomb—or cooking the earth.

Discussion of these subjects is very welcome, because most newspapers and other media today as well as many education groups and even some trade unions perpetuate the idea that all immigration is wonderful, without limits, endlessly enriching life in the U.S. And they try to enforce that thinking by shaming questioners as unspeakable bigots.

Cafaro asks: “Why are immigration debates frequently so angry? People on one side often seem to assume it is just because people on the other are stupid, or immoral. I disagree. Immigration is contentious because vital interests are at stake and no one set of policies can fully accommodate all of them.”

He details in his book “how current immigration levels—the highest in American history—undermine attempts to achieve progressive economic, environmental, and social goals.”

Anyone who’s ever looked at the Census Bureau’s Population Clock should understand that thesis. As of July 10, 2017 the clock ticks like this: One birth every 8 seconds; one death every 12 seconds; one international migrant (net) every 33 seconds, net gain of one person every 12 seconds. Our population is now over 325 million, and only quite recently it was 300 million; the rate of growth is enormous, and at present there’s no end in sight.

The 300 million mark was reached on Oct. 17, 2006, not quite 11 years ago. Will there be another 25 ½ million people in 11 years? If you’re feeling the increasing pressure of population density now, what will the quality of life be in the U.S. then?

Cafaro proposes sensible steps to restore controls over immigration and our future. The first step he suggests is a temporary moratorium on all non-emergency immigration. Amen to that!

The Carlson-Cafaro interview can be seen in the second segment of this YouTube video. Cafaro has written an article summarizing the content of his book which is posted online here.

Note:NumbersUSA, formed in 1996, brings together “moderates, conservatives & liberals working for immigration numbers that serve America's finest goals.” It now has over 8 million supporters. For those who care about a livable environment, here’s a good organization to join.

An Obama-era immigration program intended to protect parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents from deportation has been formally cancelled, fulfilling a key campaign promise from President Trump, the Homeland Security Department announced late Thursday.

Homeland Security John Kelly formally revoked a policy memo that created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program...

The program to protect parents was announced by President Obama in November 2014 but was never fully launched because it was blocked by a federal court, according to Reuters.

It was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge in Texas...

Republicans decried the effort as “backdoor amnesty” and argued that Obama overstepped his authority...

The protection program for parents, like the one for young immigrants, was created with a policy memo during the Obama administration...

Revoking the memo and ending the stalled program fulfill a key campaign promise by Trump....

...As of March 31, about 787,000 young immigrants have been approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to government data.

Arrests of immigrants in the interior of the country have increased under the Trump administration, but deportations are slightly down as fewer people have been caught crossing the Mexican border into the United States illegally.

Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority and has vowed to continue a crackdown...

Reuters reported that Trump previously said that his administration was considering different options.

“They shouldn’t be very worried,” Trump told ABC News in January, referring to DACA recipients. “I do have a big heart.

Earth Day, celebrated annually on April 22, is supposed to inspire appreciation for our natural environment and action to preserve it in a healthful condition, recognizing that all life depends on air, water and soil.

Too many environmental organizations have lost their way and morphed into political groups that will not face the topmost threat to the environment – overpopulation, caused in the U.S. by excessive immigration. See Ann Coulter’s analysis of what happened to the Sierra Club here.

Also, Joe Guzzardi, a long-time writer on immigration and the environment, presents this concise summary of the problem, with his recommendations for remedy. The article below was published in the Greeneville Sun, Greeneville TN.

As a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow, each Earth Day and on many other days during the year I address the key words that my organization strives for — population stabilization.

Environmentalists have written volumes about the importance of achieving sustainable population. On Earth Day, politicians pay token attention to how overpopulation contributes to the environment’s fragile condition. Yet the only change since the first 1970 Earth Day is that more people have been added. Today, global population is 7.5 billion, more than three times what many consider a sustainable total, and U.S. population is 325 million, more than twice what some scientists agree is the optimum number of humans.

In the U.S., population growth is less an individual family choice than the direct result of conscious congressional decisions to expand immigration that date back to 1965. During the Senate hearing about the effect the 1965 Immigration Act might have on population, New York Senator Robert Kennedy, responding to North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin’s questions, acknowledged that the legislation would eventually double U.S. population, and that mass immigration to America couldn’t and wouldn’t solve global overpopulation. Senators Ervin and Kennedy were right in their analysis, but wrong in their votes to pass the legislation. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted for the 1965 Immigration Act.

The Pew Research Center, in its retrospective on the 1965 Immigration Act, found that since its passage and through 2015, new immigrants, their children and grandchildren added 72 million people to the U.S., which accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s population growth.

The modern immigration wave vastly exceeds previous migration flows: between 1840 and 1889, 14.3 million immigrants came to the U.S., and between 1890 and 1919, an additional 18.2 million arrived.

Assuming continued decline in native fertility rates and a modest decline in net immigration, the Census Bureau calculates that in 2051 the U.S. population will hit 400 million.

But the Census Bureau is a government entity, politically motivated to calculate conservatively. Other independent studies, namely Pew and Decision Demographics, estimate that by mid-decade U.S. population will increase to more than 435 million. The same researchers concluded that if immigration were cut in half, population would grow only 70 million; if eliminated, only 31 million.

More than half a century has passed since the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted. Millions more live in our overcrowded nation. The question that Congress must answer is how many immigrants should be admitted annually to guarantee the best quality of life for future generations. Arguments to reduce immigration should not be confused as anti-immigrant, but rather pro-environment. Congress has numerous options that could establish sensible immigration that would help immigrants and native-born alike.

They include:

- A sharp reduction in employment-based visas for all but the truly exceptional. Visa holders’ U.S.-born children are automatically granted citizenship which helps permanently anchor their parents in the U.S. Students, tourists and family visitors must return home when their temporary visas expire. Congress passed an entry-exit plan 30 years ago that hasn’t yet been implemented.

- Pass mandatory E-Verify, which would ensure that only citizens and legal immigrants are employed. E-Verify eliminates the jobs magnet that lures illegal immigrants.

- End the visa lottery, and promote refugee resettlement near their home nations.

Moms in the United States illegally gave birth to 275,000 babies in 2014, enough birthright U.S. citizens to fill a city the size of Orlando, Florida, according to an analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

The data showed that newborns to illegals accounted for 7 percent of all births in 2014, according to the analysis from the Pew Research Center.

"In 2014, about 275,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in the U.S., accounting for about 7 percent of all U.S. births, and 32 percent of all U.S. births to foreign-born mothers," said Pew's newly released report.

The report reviews births to unmarried foreign-born and American born women....

"A third of all births to foreign-born mothers were to unmarried women...

The analysis also found that the growth in the birthrate of America is entirely driven by immigrants.

John H. Tanton, M.D. - retired ophthalmologist and eye surgeon is recognized as the founder of the modern immigration immigration reform movement. A video tribute to John H. Tanton, M.D. is now available. Tanton is also publisher and former editor of The Social Contract.

As a strong conservationist and leading advocate for the environment, Dr. John Tanton founded the Petoskey, Michigan regional Audubon Society. He has been active in a number of environmental organizations, both locally and nationally. Dr. Tanton recognized that continued human population growth is a significant contributor to environmental problems and he therefore became involved with the Sierra Club Population Committee and became President and board member of Zero Population Growth.

As immigration became the driving force behind unending U.S. population growth, John Tanton founded FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. John Tanton is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at reduced, sustainable numbers. He states:

"The stresses caused by population growth cannot be solved by international migration. They must be confronted by and within each individual nation. Fundamental to the concept of national rights and responsibilities is the duty of each nation to match its population with its political, social, and environmental resources, in both the short and the long term. No nation should exceed what the biologists call its 'carrying capacity.'"

This video is a tribute to the life and accomplishments of Dr. John Tanton. For more information, see:

Oregonians for Immigration Reform was founded 16 years ago by just a handful of people that were very concerned about the impact on our environment of unfettered illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.

The roots of many organizations across the country working to stop illegal immigration and slow legal immigration to a more sustainable level often start with concerns about the environment and the impact of more and more people coming to the US.

OFIR has since expanded it's membership to include thousands of members across the state with those same concerns and many more, i.e. national security, terrorism, jobs, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, crime, drugs, disease, a culture of corruption, gangs and on and on.

CAIRCO's Fred Elbel wrote of his experiences with the Sierra Club, a group that chose to ignore the impact of immigration on our fragile environment and our own quality of life. They made that choice - for money. He included an informative article written by Ian Smith and published in the Daily Caller that explains just how it happened.

NOTE: The CAIRCO website is a treasure trove of information for anyone wanting to learn more about immigration.

Yesterday was Earth Day.

I once was a member of the Sierra Club in the mid-1990s, back when their population policy included addressing mass immigration as the root cause of US Population growth. At that time, environmentalists had a lot of common sense.

Some environmentalists still do, but most environmental organizations today are feel-good social justice corporate profit centers. Take the Sierra Club as a case in point. They sold out to immigration political correctness to the tune of $100 million!

This excellent article by Ian Smith explains the gory details. It's a good read.

I was a member and a director of SUSPS, which in the late 1990s fought to reinstate the Sierra Club's long-standing, sensible immigration policy:

"Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy...